Over the years, I’ve heard — and made the comment myself — that lawful gun owners are treated like second class citizens: pay for permission to own or carry a gun, banned from stores when carrying, slandered, and subject Jim Crow-style laws telling us to even stay out of parks.
Lately, ex parte protection orders are all the rage, which allow gun owners to be stripped of rights — and guns — without any due process. All it takes is one anonymous complaint that someone feelz someone else might potentially do something in the nebulous future. Maybe.
I stand corrected. We should be so lucky to be second class citizens.
Congolese Migrants Monitored for Ebola Along Texas Border, Says Official
A public health official in Laredo, Texas, said 20 Congolese migrants were monitored for Ebola and other diseases in shelters in his city and across the Mexican border in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas. Shortly after his announcement during a Laredo City Council meeting, the World Health Organization (WHO) considered declaring a “global emergency” in response to a massive outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
To make this clear, illegal aliens from a country experiencing an uncontrolled ebola outbreak are merely being observed in shelters, instead of being quarantined. A person who has been exposed to ebola can go weeks without showing symptoms, yet still infect others.
Victim disarmers will segregate gun owners from parks and public buildings, but these noncitizens, in the country illegally, who we know came from an area experiencing one of the worst ebola outbreaks in history (not the worst… yet), are not segregated from others.
And given the usual catch & release procedures, they’ll soon be wandering amongst the general American population. Be a damned shame if they go symptomatic the next day, after having infected everyone else — “migrants” and workers alike — in the shelters… who will also be on the loose, asymptomatic, but spreading the disease.
Let’s be clear on this, too. By the official numbers, this ebola outbreak has a 63% fatality rate, and that’s with the vaccine.
But that’s cool, because at least they aren’t evil, law-abiding gun owners. They have rights.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I have a girlfriend that recently got a e-mail at her job. She works in a very safe, secure building and profession. It’s a gun-free zone. It’s a two story building with lots of great nooks, crannies and places where people could hide. But hey, they do have a armed security guard. One.
She recently got a email talking about the shooting of a healthcare worker in another state and urging people to keep their eyes open, be aware and take the deescalation classes offered. Oh, well, at least there is a sound plan in place. And there is a plan in place. If they can get to a phone, they can have a page sent out warning and letting security know where the problem is. Then everyone is to hide in place and try to protect their patients.
Officials say within minutes the suspected gunman was in custody. The hospital immediately issued a code silver and locked down the hospital as law enforcement went door to door to ensure the safety of all patients.
Hospital President Charles Williams gave a statement
“As you can imagine…It’s difficult,” Williams said. “Whenever you have someone of your family, we’re family here it’s tough”
Well, I’m sure that is reassuring to the healthcare worker and their family. Might have given them more of a feeling of warm fuzzy if your facility actually made some policy change that didn’t designate them to being a fish in a barrel wearing the proper color of scrubs. FYI, many hospitals have gone to color coding employees. All nursing wears only X color of scrubs, all lab wears only Y color of scrubs, X-ray wears only Z color of scrubs. Most patients don’t seem to realize what it means, but the hospital feels like it’s “done something” from what I heard.
SC hospital security conversation revived after 2 shootings in 2 days. They are discussing making enhanced penalties for attacks against healthcare workers. That was removed as part of sentencing reform in 2010. I’m sure that schizophrenic, or meth head, or pissed off drunk, abusive but “loving” father who just almost killed his toddler, vengeful ex-louse spouse, upset family member will certainly be deterred by increased penalties. That will no doubt stop them cold. I’m not saying they don’t make sense, they do.
But S.C. Hospital Association spokesman Schipp Ames argues health care facilities are a different working environment than anywhere else.
“They’re open to patients and visitors. We have open facilities people can come in and out of. We have sensitive actions with people,” he said. “Why are we not treating them differently?”
The idea, Ames said, is to put enhanced penalties in hospitals that would establish them as designated safe zones.
I’m saying they won’t make a bit of difference. And, I think there is another element that either isn’t being reported yet, or experienced in the US to the degree it has been in Europistan and Englandistan.
The female anaesthetist said the German health service has been completely overwhelmed by the influx of Muslim asylum-seekers who are REFUSING to be treated by female medics. …
She also claimed huge numbers of the asylum-seekers have Victorian diseases including TB, which they risk passing on to locals. …
The doctor, who wished to remain anonymous, wrote to the press back home in the Czech Republic to express her shock at the “unsustainable” situation which she says is now affecting the medical care received by taxpaying Germans. She said: “Clinics cannot handle emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the hospitals….
“Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units….
“They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words: ‘So, cure them here yourselves!’ So the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also large pharmacies.”…
In one shocking incident medic also claimed how migrants STABBED the doctors who tried to save a tiny eight-month-old baby which had been “dragged across half of Europe for three months”.
She said: “The child died in two days, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany.
“The physician had to undergo surgery and two nurses are laid up in the ICU. Nobody has been punished.
“The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we know about it through email.
“What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed a doctor and nurses with a knife?
But, lest you think that it’s only the stress of being ill or having a sick family member that brings this out.
Then in Multi-cultural Swedenistan there was the 2016 murder of Alexandra Mezher. The Swedes sent a stern message of warning to any other “refugees” that might thing about doing anything like that in the future.
In August, 2016 he was sentenced to psychiatric care, ordered to pay SEK 300,000 in compensation to Mehzer’s family. If discharged he will also be deported and forbidden from returning to Sweden until 2026. After appeal, the court of appeal upheld the sentence, except extending the deportation until 2031.
Yep, he’d be allowed to return. It’s sort of like the laws making attacking a healthcare worker stiffer. Pointless, but we “did something”.
But it’s not just healthcare clinics and hospitals that feel their employees are a dime a dozen and easily replaceable, despite their being “family” and all.
We’ve all read the stories of Pizza drivers, Uber and Lyft drivers that are expected to be easy targets or face the wrath of their employers.
A pizza deliveryman won’t face charges for fatally shooting a would-be robber several times when he was approached in a high-crime area, but his employer, Pizza Hut, has fired him for violating a company policy against carrying firearms.
“We’re doing all that we can to help him with the transition,” Pizza Hut spokesperson Chris Fuller told the Des Moines Register. The driver, James William Spiers III, was offered two months pay (without tips, naturally) and counseling in exchange for his resignation.
A pizza delivery driver who shot and killed a man who stabbed him during an attempted robbery in Beaver Falls has been fired from his job.
Full disclosure here, I haven’t eaten at a PepsiCo owned joint in years since I found out about their anti-Second Amendment stance. No Taco Smell, No KFC, No Pizza Hut, etc.
But it’s not just pizza delivery drivers that are sitting targets.
Law enforcement sources tell the Problem Solvers surveillance video shows a 14-year-old suspect sticking a gun in the face of the clerk. Moments later the clerk, who has a conceal carry permit, took out his own gun and fired once, hitting the suspect in his stomach.
Nor is it just using a gun that will get you fired.
Do these companies have a right to determine their policies? Certainly. Do they have a right to make a condition of employment that you forfeit your life willingly if attacked a condition of you working for them. Well, I suppose they do. But are those companies and institutions that do this being honest about it? No, no they aren’t. If they were the employment contract would read something along the lines of
In case of emergency, such as being attacked whether by animal or human beast we expect you to willingly leave your spouse alone to raise your children, or in the case of a single parent to leave your children orphans. We expect you to willingly leave your elderly parents grieving the loss of their child and without someone to look after them in their “golden years”. Under no circumstances, and in no way are you to fight back or attempt to preserve your life, or the life of your co-workers or those you take care of, be it school children or patients. But, we will give you two weeks paid vacation, five days of sick time and a mediocre heath-care plan and you can join our credit union.
Naturally the benefits offered would be institution or company specific, but you get the idea.
So, why would it be this way. I suspect it is for the same reasons business have been told by their insurance companies they have to be “gun-free” zones for their insurance. I recently read something that just ticked me right off.
I have been told that many employers ban carry by their employees because they’ve been told that it is less costly to let workers compensation pay for injury or death of the employee than to deal with a lawsuit from someone the employee felt forced to shoot.
All this is because insurance companies want the cheapest way out. Your lives don’t matter to them, your spouse, parents and children don’t matter to them. Remember, the insurance companies supported obamacare.
There are many times I long for a “gun-free zone” liability act. This is one of those time. It’s not that I don’t support the right of a business to make their own policies, I do. I had a conversation with a jeweler one time after I started patronizing his business. At one time he was posted “gun-free” and I wouldn’t go in there. When I noticed the sign was down, I went in to look for a watch band and asked him about it. He said he supported the Second Amendment, he had his CCW and carried, but his insurance company told him he had to do it if he wanted insurance. So how is that giving business owners the right to make their own policies?
Life is precious, even in tough times it can be sweet, there can be good, there can be blessings if we are open to seeing them. That it can be sold out so cheaply by an entity with a bias against it’s preservation by use of an effective tool is just wrong. And it’s evil. That so many young people have been indoctrinated to believe “violence is never the answer” is wrong and evil. Sometimes violence is not only the best answer, it’s the only answer. Because life does matter, don’t ever sell it cheap.
Reuters has a little problem with accuracy, especially when it involves their gun control hobbyhorse.
Swiss set to back tighter gun controls, avoid EU clash: poll After militants killed scores in Paris and elsewhere in 2015, the EU in 2017 toughened laws against purchasing semi-automatic rifles like the ones used in those attacks, and made it easier to track weapons in national databases.
I asked Reuters, and specifically the author of that article for a reference for that semi-auto claim. Because all the rifles I saw fired in footage from the January Charlie Hebdo and November 2015 attacks were automatic.
No response. From either of them.
So it’s time to shame them again. Last time I did this, it took three tries to persuade them to get the data right.
Automatic rifles. Which I knew from seeing the car machinegunned. Rocket launcher. Grenades. All of which are already banned for French civilians. The only semi-auto were pistols.
That was an early report, when it wasn’t clear exactly what the murdering scumbags used; just that they were AK-variant assault rifles. And the subgun; automatic.
Later, it got nailed down to specific models.
Specifically, the AK-variants were:
2 Type 56 assault rifle (Chinese AK variant assault rifle)
2 Zastava M70 machine guns (Serbian Ak variant assault rifle)
All automatic AK-variant rifles. Not semi-auto.
So, Reuters and Mr. Shields; would you care to correct the story… and note the correction?
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I sold the truck this afternoon) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
“Strict scrutiny” seems to the the latest bugaboo of the victim disarmers, especially in Iowa. It’s been showing up in my 2A firearms news feeds a lot in recent weeks.
And here is a somewhat typical example (and yet, atypical in an important way).
TUESDAY TOPIC: Proposed gun amendment would make Iowa less safe
Strict scrutiny is the most demanding legal standard applied in constitutional cases. It requires judges to assume that a challenged policy is unconstitutional until the state proves otherwise. This legislation provides no exceptions, not even for laws prohibiting gun possession by violent offenders or for criminal laws that enhance sentences for crimes when a firearm is used.
“It requires judges to assume that a challenged policy is unconstitutional”
Unless Iowa has judicial procedures which greatly differ from those of the rest of the country, that appears — to this legal layman — to be a significant… mischaracterization of the meaning of strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny does not require a judge to assume a law is unconstitutional until proven otherwise. In fact, no level of scrutiny — intermediate or rational basis review imposes such a requirement.
What strict scrutiny does require is that a judge begin by determining whether a challenged law infringes on a constitutional limit, and — if so — apply a three part test, each of which the law must pass.
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, such protecting the public against a specific threat.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, to avoid unnecessary infringements.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. Banning an entire class of firearms to prevent crime, when that class is rarely used in crimes, is not the least restrictive.
Basically, need, targeted at the problem, and doesn’t hurt anyone else. Think about that. Do you really want laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible?
And that’s strict scrutiny, applied comparatively rarely. Intermediate and rational basis review can allow laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible, which is why people-controlling victim disarmers hate strict scrutiny. Bottaro appears to prefer Intermediate scrutiny, in which restrictions on rights are merely “related” to the supposed need.
Or so I hope. A great many victim disarmers would much prefer presenting a “hypothetical” need.
Personally, I’d prefer another level of scrutiny: Constitutional. The test would be simple.
Does it infringe, even slightly, on an enumerated constitutional provision? If it does, it fails; go get a constitutional amendment. Because… just for example, the Second Amendment does not read “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless there is compelling governmental interest to do so.”
If there is a compelling governmental interest which requires going against the Constitution, then there is a compelling governmental interest in presenting Congress and the States with a proposed constitutional amendment.
But I digress.
I said that example from Tim Bottaro is atypical of the “strict scrutiny” columns I’ve seen recently. That’s because the author blurb at the bottom of the column says that Bottaro is an attorney. Unlike the usual MDA/Brady-fed laymen who whine ignorantly about scrutiny, Bottaro should know better. In fact, Jackie Stellish, also writing from Sioux City, seems to have a better grasp of scrutiny than Bottaro. Or is more honest.
I wonder if an attorney so grossly misinforming the public is a matter into which the Iowa State Bar Association might wish to look.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
“…99.997% who are well aware of the blatant abuse this nonsense is and will continue to be, not to mention its wholesale uncontsitutionality, and putting their nickel on “the ban can’t stand”,”
Judging by reactions I get, I doubt the number of sensible people is anywhere near 99%. Take this recent comment regarding my compliance rate column:
“I would say this, if I owned a bumpstock. you can have it.. And no, I wan’t no reason to waste ammo. I do not own one. I have belt loops on my pants. Bump stocks be damned. IT WAS JUST A GIMMICK. Let it fade. I like people, the nut job in Vegas, not so much. Think about that, Las Vegas, and there might be a nut job in the mix. Where will I vacation next?”
.
After a year and a half of discussion that person still doesn’t get it. “Let it fade,” and you let all law fade, and we live by royal whim, imperial fiat. “Stroke of the pen” and all that entails.
Nor should anyone who has been paying attention to the courts assume “the ban can’t stand.” Not just the courts hearing the bump-fire cases, which have uniformly stated that the plaintiffs (our side) are unlikely to succeed (with one lone dissent), but other cases: courts finding it unlawful to follow the law as written because a previous president chose to ignore the law, Portland protestors shutting down interstate (and international) coal traffic as the authorities refuse to do anything about it. A judge who found pipeline protestors innocent: “not responsible by reason of necessity”.
The ban well may stand.
“Anyone determined enough to protect his investment AND his rights will have had six months to think and plan slowluy acquire the necessities to ferret their hunk of plastic away somewhere safe and impossible to find.”
“Soom enough BATF will have at least as much egg on their mugs”
Egg in their beer is looking more likely, considering that the DC Appeals court made arguments for the ATF, claims even the feds declined to make, to rationalize upholding the ban.
“HOW can the government of one state order private entities in another state and tell them what they may/mayn’t DO…” the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution prohibits that.
How can the courts rule that “function of the trigger” means volitional movement of a finger? And yet, they have. But I’ll give you a hint how that can happen, although I don’t know if this has been raised in the bizarre NJ case: constructive possession; a California prosecutor could argue that a standard capacity magazine shipped to California remains in the constructive possession of the shipper until it is delivered to the purchaser. Thus, the shipper “possessed” the arbitrarily-unlawful magazine in California, and is subject to their law. Take one look at the Ninth Circus and tell — with a straight face — that they would not buy that legal contortion.
Or the Supreme Court. Remember, these are the judicial gymnasts who, for eighty years, have upheld the National Firearms Act on the grounds that such items can be regulated because they are not militarily useful, but that machineguns can be regulated because they are.
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
Overturning the bump-fire ban is not a slam dunk in an age where the laws is whatever the government says it is today. And remember that the ATF and Courts are both parts of that government.
We are fighting lunatics and liars — DOJ attorneys like Eric Soskin and judges alike — who matter-of-factly state that fingers are triggers, and the only difference between a machinegun and a semi-auto is whether the finger is moved volitionally. (Which, coupled with the concept that a select-fire trigger group is a machinegun itself, makes your finger one such if you are moving it.)
That fight will be long and hard. And expensive. Two of the major groups leading the challenges to the ban are the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America. They can use your support in this.
(Other groups and individuals raising money to fight the ban can drop a link in comments, and I’ll update this list to include you.)
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck; contact me if you’re interested in a ’96 Ranger with less than 85K miles)) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
It’s time to play “Fisk the Bogus Research” again. Today’s offering:
Cooling-off period for handgun purchases save lives, research shows
Malhotra, Michael Luca and Christopher Poliquin authored a study which found that handgun waiting periods reduces gun homicides by 17% and gun suicides by 10%.
[…]
Expanding the waiting period policy to all other US states would prevent an additional 910 gun homicides per year without imposing any restrictions on who can own a gun.
Waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%
A bold claim. Does their methodology really support it?
the model for gun homicides omits three state-years, and the model for non-gun homicides omits two state years because the death count was zero
We’re done. I’m not not going to do a full fisk on a study where they admit they tossed valid data that didn’t support their conclusions. You don’t omit data because the number is zero. You count the zero. Deliberately omitting zero when computing an “average” will yield a higher average.
1+1+1+1=4. 4/4=1.
0+1+1+1=3 3/4=0.75.
Oh, heck. Let’s look at some other stuff. For instance, they found that firearm waiting periods reduced nonfirearm homicides and suicides (Insignificant, they say, but that they found a definite effect at all should have prompted them to examine it for cause). How, pray tell?
What they also didn’t address is how waiting periods could have such a dramatic effect when roughly 93% of firearms used in murders are obtained through channels which bypass background checks and waiting periods: theft, black market, straw purchases, friends & family, and even “found it at the scene of my crime” (seriously; that’s a fairly common answer in the inmate surveys).
According to the FBI, 10,982 people were murder with firearms in 2017 The CDC says 14,542. If only 7% percent of those murders were committed with firearms subject to checks or waiting periods, we have a possible 769 to 1018 victims who might have benefited from waiting periods. But only if they were killed with firearms obtained no more than three days prior to the murder. But we’ll work with it. Let’s pretend we could have saved 17% as our researchers claim.
That gives us a range of 131 to 173 lives which might’ve been saved. Not the 910 claimed. They’re only off by a factor of 5.26 to 6.95. Truly though, it’s worse than that. 16 states (and DC) have waiting periods. I’d have to sort murders by state to find the fewer who might have benefited.
Hint to researchers using models: If your model doesn’t match reality, change the model, not reality.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
How? In this case, how will sheriffs enforce the universal background check law, Balderas?
New Mexico AG says sheriffs must enforce gun control law
New Mexico’s attorney general says law enforcement agencies must enforce a new law expanding background checks to nearly all private gun sales and that they could be liable for damage claims if they don’t.
Short of a deputy witnessing a transfer as it happens, I don’t see how it’s enforceable on law enforcement.
Deputy: “Hey, citizen. I see you have a gun. Did you do a background check before you got it?”
Citizen: “Deputy, you know I’ve had this revolver for eight years.”
Deputy: “Oh. Yeah.”
Or maybe it would go like so:
Deputy: “Is that a new gun? I don’t recognize it. You do your background check?
Citizen: “Screw that. I bought it from Joe Blow on March 7, 2019, before that dumbass law got signed.”
Deputy: “Oh. Yeah.”
For that matter, what’s the probable cause to investigate in the first place? Merely that an officer doesn’t recall seeing a particular person with a specific firearm before?
Deputy: “Nice rifle. Just get it?”
Citizen: “Yep.”
Deputy: “Do a NICS check first?”
Citizen: “Yep.”
Deputy: “Can you prove it?”
Citizen: “Can you prove I didn’t? I went through all four pages of that BS law, and nothin’ says I gotta keep paperwork for ya.”
Deputy: “Who ran NICS for you? I can check the dealer’s records.”
Citizen: Damned if I remember. Nothin’ says I gotta have a perfect memory either.”
Or maybe Joe Citizen bought it from Dad, or his brother. And neither kept anything but a receipt… dated 3/8/2019. Or undated. Or nothing at all; it isn’t required.
Even if a deputy witnessed a private transfer, say… at a gun show, since that’s where victim disarmers think criminal buy their guns…
Deputy: “Hey, you didn’t do a NICS check!”
Citizen: “Don’t gotta. He’s my uncle; ‘immediate family member’ as specified in the constitutional abortion.”
Deputy: “Can you prove that?”
Citizen 2: “Can you prove I’m not? Ain’t like the law requires me to carry around a marriage certificate showing I’m married to his maw’s sister.”
Deputy: “We could subpoena that.”
Citizen 2: “Did I mention that it was a common-law marriage in New Hampshire?”
I suppose if the authorities had doubts, they could confirm the transaction with the seller… who has every reason to verify the buyer’s claim since the law makes both parties criminals if they didn’t conduct the check.
I don’t think Senators Martinez and Wirth thought this through.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
It’s an Opioid epidemic. You hear it all over the news. I read articles about it in my Farm Bureau magazine, it seems to be the “deadly German Shepherd/Doberman/Pit Bull” stories of the day. I’m so old I can remember how different decades had their designated “deadly dog” breed. Which of course is utter bull. Of any breed.
But this Opioid epidemic is so bad, it even has it’s own Wiki entry (/snark). What do we learn?
The worry surrounding the potential of a worldwide pandemic has affected opioid accessibility in countries around the world. Approximately 25.5 million people per year, including 2.5 million children, die without pain relief worldwide, with many of these cases occurring in low and middle-income countries. The current disparity in accessibility to pain relief in various countries is significant; the U.S. produces or imports 30 times as much pain relief medication as it needs while low-income countries such as Nigeria receive less than 0.2% of what they need, and 90% of all the morphine in the world is used by the world’s richest 10%.America’s opioid epidemic has resulted in an “opiophobia” that is stirring conversations among some Western legislators and philanthropists about adopting a “war on drugs rhetoric” to oppose the idea of increasing opioid accessibility in other countries, in fear of starting similar opioid epidemics abroad
Well, clearly something must be done. The government must step in. I know, more snark.
Which has led to many states passing “Prescription Drug Monitoring Program” PDMP. The government given reason is to catch people doctor shopping. The government, in addition to your doctor, feels they need to be aware of every prescription you are given. It will no doubt stop this current epidemic.
In 2016, the medical news site STAT reported that while Mexican cartels are the main source of heroin smuggled into the U.S., Chinese suppliers provide both raw fentanyl and the machinery necessary for its production. In British Columbia, police discovered a lab making 100,000 fentanyl pills each month, which they were shipping to Calgary, Alberta. 90 people in Calgary overdosed on the drug in 2015. In Southern California, a home-operated drug lab with six pill presses was uncovered by federal agents; each machine was capable of producing thousands of pills an hour.
Or not.
So what is the real reason for this intrusive action? Well, I could let Missouri’s Rep. Lynn Morris tell you about it, he’s all in favor of it.
Seems to me like this will mostly prevent people from going to their doctor and getting help when they need it. Depressed? Don’t go to the doctor, or don’t tell them. Want to quit smoking using Wellbutrin like your neighbor did? Not any more. Why not? Because those too, are medications that obama listed as being medications that should deny someone the right to own a gun. The data in the PDMP will of course be shared with other states. And of course it’s going to wind up in the federal government’s hands. I don’t care what they tell you. For example, Missouri has a law that the data obtained to get a driver’s license, for example you had to supply a copy of your birth certificate, was not suppose to leave the state. When Jay Nixon-Demoncrat was governor he betrayed the people of Missouri and turned over the data to MorphoTrust. Most assuredly not in Missouri. And then he lied publicly many times about doing it. They’re politicians, they lie. I’ve met a few honest ones, but so far Moshe Feiglin of Zehut, while on track to enter the Knesset in the next round of elections has still so far refused to come to America and enter the political arena.
But if the medical field is to be the arbiter of what is good, acceptable, legal, and kept private I would wonder how they handle other situations where they have that much power over people’s lives. I mean denying someone their G-d given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights is a pretty big thing. So, how do they acquit themselves?
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has placed gun restrictions on thousands of veterans without due process, and Congress needs to address the matter. It is quite ironic that under VA policy, the men and women who protected our nation in the armed forces are effectively becoming disarmed by unaccountable government employees.
Justina’s plight had become international news in Marty’s backyard. One fateful winter day in February 2013, Justina traveled with her mom to BCH from her West Hartford, Conn., home, seeking relief from a severe case of the flu. Ordinary sickness compounded Justina’s rare medical conditions, including mitochondrial disease and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. But those illnesses hadn’t stopped her from participating in school, competitive ice skating, and an active family life.
Instead of receiving top-notch care and attention at BCH, however, Justina was snatched from her parents and recklessly rediagnosed with a psychological condition, “somatoform disorder.” She was dragged from BCH’s neurology department to its infamous psych ward, where she was reprimanded for being unable to move her bowels or walk unassisted in her weakened state. At Wayside, she was harassed by a staffer while taking a shower. The physical and mental torture lasted 16 months.
The family is now suing the gold-medallion-adorned, scandal-plagued Boston Children’s Hospital.
It has been more than 4 years since the most infamous case of medical kidnapping in the United States occurred when the state of Massachusetts, together with Boston Children’s Hospital, seized custody of then 14-year-old Justina Pelletier over a medical disagreement.
The story exploded across mainstream and international media after her father Lou Pelletier courageously defied an unconstitutional gag order and risked prison to tell his family’s story. With heavy hitters in the national media like Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee and Dr. Phil giving them exposure, as well as an army of advocates by their side, it still took 16 months to get their daughter home.
Justina, to this day, still suffers physical, mental, and emotional trauma from all that happened to her during her captivity.
And from the above story, here’s a little tidbit I had no idea, so in case you didn’t know either:
When Justina Pelletier’s story came to light, the world learned the horrifying reality that children who are wards of the state, including foster children, may legally be used in the United States as medical lab rats or guinea pigs in drug trials and medical research without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
We learned that Boston Children’s Hospital and other hospitals around the country engage in this type of practice that would ordinarily be thought of as something only the Nazis during WWII would have done.
A 2014 article by Matt Barber at WND exposed the written policy of Boston Children’s Hospital that:
“Children who are Wards of the State may be included in research that presents greater than minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit.”
Well, but that was a few years back, so perhaps the medical field has reined in their abuse of power after things like this came to light, right?
Child Protective Services (CPS) personnel attempted to kidnap Maryanne’s 13-year-old daughter. They accused her of not giving her child psychiatric medication prescribed by her doctor.
Maryanne says the medication caused side effects in her daughter and made her condition worse, which is why she refused to give her daughter the medication.
The medication was Risperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication known for causing serious side effects such as abdominal pain, vomiting, aggression, anxiety, dizziness and lack of coordination
Child “Protective” services called the police to take the child away, a SWAT team got involved, it was just ugly.
In this one, a Mother took her flu-stricken 2 year old to a “doctor” who decided since the child wasn’t vaccinated it must have meningitis and told the Mom to take it to the ER. Child’s fever broke shortly after that and was soon playing with it’s siblings. Mom called the “doctor” said child was ok and they didn’t need to go to the ER. Doctor told them to go anyway. Mom disobeyed the “doctor” and didn’t. This resulted in a 0100 door busting entry by the local SWAT team to remove all 3 children.
And now you understand the term M. Deity complex.
But hey the judge that signed off on this offered some great words of encouragement.
Despite arguments from the family’s lawyer that they did what they believed to be the best thing for the child who had the fever, the judge ultimately sided with the state and DCS, telling the parents that they needed to “remember” that the state had a “family-reunification plan” in place, whatever that means.
And this is the same government that is going to monitor the medications you or your family members do or don’t take. It matters not to me if you take vaccines or not, I realize there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate although I notice the people that choose vaccines seem to be much more hostile about it. Calling those that don’t want them “anti-vaxxers” while those that don’t want the vaccine don’t seem to care what anyone else does, they just don’t want it themselves.
But for those that choose to put every vaccine available in themselves and their children and insist everyone else do the same at the point of a governmental gun or have their children seized. Have you considered what happens when the government, chooses to do something you disagree with? You want to home school? Too bad. You want to send your child a home made lunch rather than buy the obama lunch? Too bad. Will child protective services take you child? When you demand government make laws affecting other people’s children, someone else is demanding laws that will affect yours.
But with the medical field showing itself to be rabidly anti-gun does anyone think the PDMP will not be abused to compromise the Second Amendment? What form will that abuse take and how far will it go?
What an unholy alliance! The BATFE, the AMA and adding in a PDMP. Yesh. The cherry on top? The “red flag” ERPOs, that alphabet soup should be enough to give anyone indigestion. But whatever you do, don’t call your doctor!
Actually there may be a cure.
Missouri is called the “Show Me” state, and they may be showing us the way to handle some of this. They currently have legislation being heard called the Second Amendment Preservation Act. They’ve been trying for a few years to get it passed. The VNRA (Bear, I poached your term) lied about it one go round and killed it. But they are trying again and it’s a fabulous piece of legislation.
And here is a good video to explain it. It won’t help with the states that are foolishly enacting ERPOs and PDMPs but it may help with some other things. Like for example, government agencies that make gun rules on a whim.
I recently renewed my CPR certification, it’s required for my job. In it, in every scenario it was stressed over and over again that one of the main factors determining survival rates was the speed with which CPR was started and the effectiveness of the CPR.
So, anti-gun medical people*, explain to me a faster and more effective self-defense tool than a gun? Oh yes, prevention is important. But just as vaccines do not prove effective every time, home defense prevention doesn’t always work. Will you wait for the ambulance to come rather than starting CPR (because after all, that should be left to the professionals) even though that wait may prove fatal? Well, why do you expect me to wait for the Deputies to come when I could have had something more effective and faster? Hypocrisy much?
*I most certainly realize not all medical people are anti-gun. Not all doctors ask patients and parents “Do you own a gun” and make it part of the patients medical records. But many do, and it’s part of the patients records, records no longer kept just at the doctors office due to obamacare. If you think these Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs won’t be abused? You possibly have a fever and are delusional, or have meningitis. Take two aspirin and skip calling the doctor in the morning. Just have some nice coffee.
The deadline for compliance with the irrational “bump-stock-type device (BSTD)” — bump-fire — ban has passed. So how effective has the imperial fiat been at making the nation safe from inert “machineguns”?
Who the hell knows? No one even knows how many there were; the ATF’s “estimate” (“SA Smedley! Quick; bend over so I can pull a number out.”) was 280,000 to 520,000 BSTDs sold. I’d like to see them give a 95% confidence level for WAG.
But I was interested, so I’ve been collecting turn-in reports. Such as they are. The majority of reports of turn-ins and destruction were merely unsubstantiated, vague claims that “people” are “complying,” without so much as a single example. I don’t count those.
The biggie, of course, was RW Arms who turned in for destruction 60,000 items they still had in stock. I’m not counting those because they hadn’t been sold; they weren’t part of the 280-520K giggle-guess.
After that come the great state of Washington, with a reported 1,000 turned in during their “buy-back”.” The problem with that number is hiding in the details. People were supposed to be paid $150 for each bump-fire stock. But the most detailed report stated that they only paid for 122 of 150 stocks surrendered. I suspect they were paying for commercial products, and some maliciously compliant smartasses (bless ’em) slapped together some bump-fire stocks from hunks of wood or PVC pipe.
So my wild ass guess is that only 81% of the WA turn-ins would count against the ATF “sold” estimate: 810.
Illinois saw “a few” but a more detailed report clarified that “few” meant “1”.
Massachusetts, again with an earlier state ban: “only a few”. Since “few” doesn’t appear to be defined in statutory law, let’s say that between “handful” and “dozen.” Call it 8.
In North Carolina, the ATF claims “some” were turned over, but declined to give numbers. How many is “some”? I’m feeling generous. It was “steadily […] over the last few weeks.” Steadily = 1 per week. Few = 8. So call it 8 more BSTDs.
So, nationwide, I can only document 834 bump-fire stocks turned in. For some values of “document.”
But one can comply with the Royal Whim by destroying your valuable property. That’s going to be a little tougher to nail down.
I had no news reports specifically describing any destructions, just the aforemention vague “people are doing but we don’t know.” So next I turned to YouTube.
Frankly, a couple of searches there surprised me. I honestly thought I’d find more. As with news reports, it was mostly, “I’m going to,” or “I did, but I’m not showing it.”
The only videos I located which showed the destruction or the finished “product” numbered just…
Scratch the homemade unit (only counting those the ATF estimates “sold,” you know), and we have 10. We’re now up to 845 mass murder tactical death machines safely off the street.
845. Across the nation.
I searched a few firearms forums as well. Not a single turn-in or destruction mentioned. It was mostly, “They’re stupid; I never had one,” “I had one, but it wasn’t as good as I thought, and I got rid of it years ago,” or “They look like fun, but I never bought one.” I rather expected a “few” from my cold, dead hands declarations, but didn’t spot any.
845.
Taking the ATF’s low estimate of 280,000 BSTDs sold, they have achieved a miraculous 0.30% compliance rate.
Using the highball guess: 0.16%.
Trump must be so proud.
Zelman Partisan regulars are fine, upstanding people who obviously do their best to comply with constitutional laws. No doubt any of us who happened to own one of these evil machineguns has done the right thing. So quick poll of those who had them.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
While sorting through the news Tuesday morning, two seemingly unrelated stories ended up in adjacent tabs.
First…
Sandy Hook lawsuit against AR-15 maker could actually reach the Supreme Court
But the state supreme court ruled plaintiffs’ suit can proceed under Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Bushmaster’s advertising essentially encouraged customers and others to use their XM15 rifles — the type used by Lanza — for criminal purposes.
Leaving aside how Bushmaster is responsible for the use of a firearm it sold to a dealer who sold it to a woman who had it taken by someone else after she was murdered…
Alleged: Advertising the rifle as suitable for mass murder.
Which brings me to the second article…
Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates
[Lead study author Michael Spiegel] observed, “Laws regulating the sale of assault weapons are unlikely to have a large impact on homicide rates, because these weapons are used in only a very small proportion of homicides. The vast majority of firearm homicides in the United States are committed with handguns.”
Hardly news. The government discovered the same thing after the federal “Assault Weapon Ban” of ’94. And that very thing had been predicted by numerous people when the bill was being debated.
But the juxtaposition of the stories struck me.
Pantytwisters: Eek! Bushmaster is advertising mass murder tactical death machines and encouraging us to go out and kill everything!
Everyone else: Didn’t work.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
